Must See Courtroom Video: Kentucky Judge Lets Armed Robbers Off, Calls Three-Year-Old White Victim ‘Racist’


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

 photo Judge20Olu20Stevens_zpsdfxwgjxc.jpg
Judge Olu Stevens

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston.

A black judge in Kentucky gave a home invader and armed robber a light sentence because he said he feels that the three-year-old white victim was a “racist” because in her victim statement the little girl said she is now afraid of black people after two black men broke into her home and threatened her with a gun.

In an outrageous statement from the bench, Louisville Judge Olu Stevens attacked the tiny white toddler and her parents for their “racism” calling the little girl’s statement “disturbing” while at the same time excusing the actions of the criminals who traumatized her. That’s right, this judge was more upset at a little girl for being scared by armed robbers than he was at the armed robbers.

At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. The statement read in part, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Then the judge outrageously attacked the little girl saying her statement disgusted him…


Judge Olu Stevens’ unleashed his wrath on the little girl and her parents who were the victims of the robbery.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” Stevens said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

Judge Stevens then gave the criminal probation because he “deserved” the opportunity to redeem himself.

So, the armed robber who traumatized a tiny girl gets probation because this judge claimed that the little girl was a racist….? And you can get he assumes that the little girl deserved to be robbed at gunpoint because she is white.

Now, think of this. If this “judge” was so willing to excoriate a 3-year-old girl for being a “racist” one has to wonder how many other black criminals he’s let go because he thinks that all whites–even tiny tots–are racists?

This jerk needs to be removed from the bench.





Game Changer In South Carolina Shooting?


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.



Hat/Tip to I Hate The Media and The Conservative Treehouse.

A long post, but jam packed with plenty of info.


Updated 4/12/15 2:15pm with additional video

On the first day we saw the North Charleston, South Carolina, shooting video of Walter Scott by Officer Michael Slager we were as shocked as everyone.  However, as our research now indicates, there is much more to the story.

What we cover here in the latest update might just change the entire way the story continues…

Today, April 12th – We share alarming discoveries within the non-discussed details.

Treeper Diwataman , who previously discovered the “Three Stooges” interaction with Trayvon Martin (which became a game changer leading to the discovery of why Trayvon was at the 7-11) has done another incredible job creating a video to aid a larger understanding.

With discovery of the full radio dispatch recording of North Charleston Police, and with the Dash Cam video(s) from two vehicles, Diwataman was able to assemble a video syncing all of the data into one format easily understood.

The sync’d  video IS BRILLIANT and shows the length of time in the chase, confrontation, physical struggle between Officer Slager and Walter Scott, and the first aid administered by the responding officers.

Additionally, by adding a running clock from the moment Scott begins to run from the vehicle scene you can see the length of the struggle:


Walter Scott map 2

You can clearly see and hear this was not a short fight prior to Officer Slager using his firearm to shoot Walter Scott.  But that fact alone is not the most important discovery in the past 24 hours.

What is potentially a game changer occurs when you review Officer Slager stating he had lost control/custody of the x26 Taser he deployed to restrain a non compliant Scott – and recognize the Taser actually appears to have been used against him.

At least one dart appears lodged in the upper torso, chest, shirt of Officer Slager.

walter scott tazer leads

If you review the raw footage  (source New York Times) of the witness shooting video you can clearly see the wire from the Taser connected to Officer Slager.

Additionally, if you follow the wire you also recognize the cartridge from the Taser itself is being dragged behind the fleeing Walter Scott.

This is critical because the darts are on one end of the wire, and the cartridge is on the other end – usually cartridge remaining in the trigger assembly.  However, the cartridge is obviously dislodged in the struggle.

If the cartridge is dragging behind Scott -somehow tangled with his foot/shoe or leg – and the line is visibly taut (which it is) then the dart end is indeed attached to Officer Slager.

*NOTE* The civilian version of the x26 (x26C) only has 10-15? of wire, but the LEO version is 25? to 35?.  From the imaging it appears the length is at least 25?.

walter scott - taser x26 - slager

walter scott - taser s26 specs

This means when the Taser fired during the struggle, the darts actually penetrated Slager, not Scott.

Factually this aligns with the recorded statement of Slager and the reports of his initial debriefing.

It could be that one dart is in the leg of Slager and the other is in the upper torso region as evidenced below.

Walter Scott - taser lead

This would also explain the picture of Slager being debriefed after the confrontation with his left pant leg folded up as he explains events to the documenting officer.

walter scott - slager - uniform debrief

Expanding these visuals and going back to the original source video taken by eye-witness Feidin Santana, an emerging picture comes to the surface.  Officer Slager did in fact lose custody of the Taser to Walter Scott.

walter scott tazer

This puts Slager at a serious disadvantage and obvious risk.

Eye-witness Santana describes hearing the sound of the Taser in his statement (as shared by his attorney Todd Rutherford):

[…]  After observing the two men struggle on the ground and hearing the sound of a Taser gun, I began filming the altercation with my cell phone”. (link)

Walter Scott - feidin santana statement

feidin santana

In the micro-seconds of decision-making, and having chased a fleeing suspect, and having physically struggled for almost two minutes, a scenario emerges where Slager -having lost the advantage of his Taser, and facing the risk of incapacitation from his own Taser being used against him – doesn’t realize (as they stand up – still fighting) the cartridge has dislodged from the trigger assembly.

The Taser wire is clearly still attached to Officer Slager as he draws his firearm to regain control against the risk presented by Scott.  The whereabouts of the actual trigger assembly unknown to Slager but in the video you can see it landing behind them.

If you frame by frame the video you will note the wire is still attached to the torso of Slager, and tightening by the fleeing Scott, as Slager fires the first shot.

walter scott tazer leads

Between shots 1 and 2 the wire pulls free from the officer’s upper torso as Scotts’ forward momentum dislodges it.

However, the wire is also still hung up on the foot/leg area of Scott as he runs away.  You can see the Taser cartridge bouncing along behind him.

View post on

An argument can be made, and would be supported by factual evidence, that Officer Slager didn’t know Scott was not in possession of the trigger assembly.  Slager now focused on using his firearm – this is all happening in microseconds.

How dramatically this information changes the position or perspectives of the people who are holding opinion is most likely based on the ideology/bias of the observer.

Does the paradigm shift all the way to justification?  Not sure – that’s not our forte’.

However, weighing all of this against a charge of murder, and considering it presented before a jury…. well, at least to us, at the very least, this presents ‘very reasonable’ doubt.

south carolina 3

Walter Scott - Feidin Santana

Video eye-witness Feidin Santana with his attorney Todd Rutherford visit with the family of Walter Scott and their attorney Chris Stewart – Friday 4/10/15.

[…]  “The family’s legal team was gathering evidence for a civil federal lawsuit. “A civil lawsuit can’t bring him back to life,” Mr. Stewart said of Mr. Scott, “but it provides for the future, which would be his children”  (link)

The youngest child of Mr. Scott is 16 and the older three are in their 20’s.   That’s a fact you will see largely ignored by the MSM.  However, perhaps Mr. Scott in death will do for his children what he chose not to do in life.

[…]  “He (Feidin Santana) kept recording as the officer struck Mr. Scottand put a stun gun to Mr. Scott’s side, then as Mr. Scott slipped away”.. (link)

“Slipped away”?  “A Tussle”?  What’s next, a pillow fight? And then there is this little nugget:

[…]  “He (Feidin Santana) checked Facebook to see if he knew anyone in common with the family, and found that they shared some friends. He asked one of those friends to make an unusual introduction. He showed the video to the Scott family on Sunday and turned it over to state investigators on Monday”…. (link)

walter scott witness






College Student Bullied, Threatened, When She Questioned Campus ‘Privilege’ Mythology


H/T:  Girls Just Wanna Have Guns

When you encounter hate on campus, you better keep your mouth shut, or things will get personal quickly.  Laurel Littler, a junior commercial photography major at Appalachian State, found this out the hard way.  Campus Reform has more…

A bulletin board hung by a resident assistant in a primarily freshmen and sophomore dorm shames those who are have white, male, Christian, able-bodied, heterosexual, or cisgendered “privilege.”

“Why can’t I hold all this male privilege,” reads one meme on the bulletin board hanging at Appalachian State University.

Translation:  You didn’t work for, or earn anything, it was given to you!  If you insist on hard work and merit, you have privilege! SUBMIT!

“A residential hall is the last place to push an agenda.”   

“‘I don’t see color’ which also means I deny having white privilege,” reads another flier on the red board adorned with colorful puzzle pieces.

Translation:  You might not be racist, but we are.  We will twist reality to make your lack of racism racist…you racist!  Because racism!

The fliers are products of the “Check Your Privilege” campaign started by three University of San Francisco professors, as previously reported by Campus Reform.

“If you can expect time off from work to celebrate your religious holidays, you have Christian privilege,” one flier reads.

Translation:  But we won’t say a thing if Muslims, Wiccans, and any other religions demand a thing, including our own deaths.

Go to the link at Campus Reform for more.

This is how the left works.  They fight imagined bullying, by actual bullying.   Then, when you point out that they’re bullying, they claim to be the victims, and use that as a justification to bully some more.  They decry imagined shame by inflicting real shame.  They preach tolerance, but in action show none.  They condemn reality, like merit and achievement, and embrace fairy tales, such as “privilege.”

This is their religion.  If you achieve, and refuse to kneel to their ‘god,’ you’ll be branded a heretic.

By the way, I checked my “privilege.”  It’s right on a shelf in between pixie dust, and unicorn farts.

And remember kids, unicorn farts reverse global warming!


First Accredited Muslim College In US Will Receive Federal Grants: Affirmative Action?




Tammy Bruce notes that the first accredited Muslim college, in the U.S., was founded by three “jihadists,” and she asks if Zaytuna College, in where else–wait for it–Berkley, will offer courses in Advanced Stoning. I’m asking if affirmative action will be required, and adhered to? Well, yes it will according to the guidelines of the National Conference of State Legislatures. Any “minority” wanting to study with Jew-haters, male or female (yes, female) may apply, and within whatever the affirmative action guidelines are for schools receiving taxpayer’s dollars, an applicant should have a reasonable expectation of admission.

The National Conference of State Legislatures states:

Affirmative action policies are those in which an institution or organization actively engages in efforts to improve opportunities for historically excluded groups in American society…In institutions of higher education, affirmative action refers to admission policies that provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities. Source: NCSL

The founders are Imam/Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir and Hatem Bazian.


Hamza Yusuf

1) Hamza Yusuf – I wrote about him in 2009. He was teaching at the “Zaytuna,” at the time, which apparently has now been deemed a “college.” He was born Mark Hanson in Walla Walla, Washington and converted to Islam at the age of 17.

Discover the Networks:

After the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, Hamza Yusuf Hanson changed his manner, discarding his Wahhabi-style beard and Arabic dress. But he did not change his essential character–he is still a radical. He also did not abandon his penchant puffery: He was once known as Imam Hamza Yusuf; he now styles himself “Sheikh” Hamza Yusuf. Not long ago, the Saudi daily newspaper Okaz published the claim that Hanson is the “mufti,” or chief Islamic jurist, for California–as if the Golden State was governed by a Muslim regime….

For those keeping score, it was just 10 years ago [as of 2006] that Hamza Yusuf issued a denunciation of democracy and the Bill of Rights as “false gods.”

More from Discover the Networks:

“[America] a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights.”

On September 9, 2001, two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Hamza Yusuf spoke of the sad fact that the Egyptian Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Tower bombing, was unjustly incarcerated, and was particularly bent out of shape that Rahman did not have the opportunity to carry out the plans to bomb Manhattan bridges and tunnels.

Reports say he stepped away from Wahhabbism after 9-11-01. Is he a changed man?He was in George Bush’s office two days after the towers fell, and he joined the group singing God Bless America. He had the influence to get the name of Operation Infinite Justice changed, because it was blasphemous to Muslims.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s paper on Yusuf concedes to his changed outer actions but put in print that he is is still “…sees the United States as an inherently hostile nation, one that ‘relishes war.’” From the same report on Yusuf says that George W. Bush’s Iraq policy was a crime and Bush should be tried for felony murder. On videotape, he has “railed” against Judaism, calling it “racist.”

Zaid Shakir

2) Zaid Shakir (Ricky D. Mitchell) was born in Berkeley, California, raised in Atlanta and New Britain, Connecticut. He joined the U.S. Air Force in 1976, and it was during that time that he converted to Islam. He has a BA in International Relations from American University and a Master’s in Political Science from Rutgers. He has served as the Muslim chaplain at Yale.

Shakir is known for having expressed his desire to see the United States eventually become — “not by violent means, but by persuasion” — a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law. “Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” he said.

In Shakir’s view, Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, because it “is against the orders and ordainments of Allah.” “[T]he orientation of the Quran,” he explains, “pushes us in the exact opposite direction.”

At least there’s this:

Shakir has condemned terrorist attacks against civilians. Although he was harshly critical of the December 2008 Israeli offensive into Gaza, he warned Muslims against responding with anti-Semitic attacks on Jews. On January 8, 2009, he wrote, “…the Muslim blogosphere is filling up with angry calls for the indiscriminate murder of Jews … [S]uch calls for indiscriminate killing have nothing to do with our religion.”

But then there’s this:

Shakir’s opposition to attacking Israeli civilians did not, however, deter him from defendingHamas. Although he described Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli towns as “ill-conceived,” he said that the organization “was never given a chance to prove its commitment to the peace process.”

Shakir also appears to embrace 9/11 conspiracy theories. In October 2007 he described the September 11th attacks as having “occurred under dubious circumstances that have yet to be thoroughly examined.”

According to Shakir, American foreign policy has been hijacked by the military-industrial complex. In May 2009 he admonished the U.S. for its “pattern of demonization, destabilization, and the invasion of hapless Third World nations,” saying that such aggression is always carried out under the guise of national interests. Among those he listed as victims of American “demonization” were Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Manuel Noriega, Muammar Qadhafi, and the Taliban. More.

Zaid Shakir has called for Muslims in the Western World to counter the problem of racism, and “plunge into the murky waters of racial politics.”

Hatem Bazian

3) Hatem Bazian is a native of Palestine, and currently a senior lecturer in the Near Eastern and Ethnic Studies Department at UC Berkeley (where protests against Jewish students are appalling, and allowed by the university).

Terrorism expert and author Steven Emerson, in his book American Jihad,quotes Bazian sermonizing at a May 1999 American Muslim Allianceconference where he advocated the creation of an Islamic State of Palestine and the slaughter of Jews. Excerpts from the quote read: “In the Hadith, the Day of Judgment will never happen until you fight the Jews. They are on the west side of the river, which is the Jordan River, and you’re on the east side until the trees and stones will say, ‘oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him!’ And that’s in the Hadith about this, this is a future battle before the Day of Judgment.”

In May 2002 Bazian was the sole speaker at a two-day Middle Eastern “cultural assembly” at San Francisco’s George Washington High School—an event whose rhetoric was so inflammatory that it generated formal letters of apology from the school administration to the public. The proceedings featured, for instance, a student singing a rap song that compared Zionists to Nazis while other students paraded with Palestinian flags in the background….

In 2005 Bazian founded American Muslims for Palestine, which has repeatedly accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing,” “apartheid,” and “war crimes.”

Prior to 2006 Bazian was a fundraising speaker for KindHearts, a Hamasfront group that the U.S. government shut down in February 2006 due to the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorism. More.

Hatem Bazian has been closely involved with the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and received his Ph.D. in Philosophy and Islamic studies from–where else–UC Berkeley.

Back to the question of affirmative action, must all females wear head gear? Are you “affirmed if you refuse head gear? The curriculum includes emphasis on key foundational texts; “an in-depth examination of critical methodological issues; a command of the Arabic language; a familiarity with the most important Islamic sciences; and grounding in law, history, philosophy, science, astronomy, literature, ethics, and politics.” And finally, what better way to recruit than offering a degree path, and changing hearts and minds?





NY Police Find Arsenal Of Weapons At Home of Man Accused Of Plotting To Kill Cops


AP/Craig Ruttle

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart.

It’s not enough to kill cops, now they need to kill WHITE cops.

Thanks President Obama for the biggest racial divide in America since the Civil Rights protests of the late ’60s.

A Queens man arrested after he was allegedly overheard vowing to kill white cops in New York was found to have an “arsenal” of weapons, including bulletproof vests and firearms with serial numbers filed off, the NYPD reported.

Police say that Elvin Payamps of Queens was heard talking on his cell phone lamenting the fact that neither of the two officers killed the weekend before Christmas were white and vowing to kill white officers to correct the situation.

Thank God the guy was dumb enough to make his threats within earshot of a cop.

According to Otero, Payamps said:

“I’m going to kill another cop. We should do it before Christmas. The cop should have been white that was killed. I always have a gun on me.”

After Payamps’s arrest, police reportedly found several firearms with defaced serial numbers, a pair of brass knuckles, and two bulletproof vests–one of which he admitted to stealing from the Brooklyn Detention Center. Some small amount of pot was also recovered from the apartment.

Payamps was ordered held in lieu of $500,000 bail on felony weapons charges, charges of felony aggravated harassment, unlawful use of a police uniform, and marijuana possession.

Read the full story here.





Jonathan Gruber Thinks Abortion Is A Good Way To Save On Welfare



Hat/Tip to Nickarama at WeaselZippers.

Eugenics, anyone? Now Gruber is on record saying that abortions help keep ‘marginal children’ off of the welfare roles and out of prison.

Eeks! ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: Abortion Of “Marginal Children” A “Social Good”

Simultaneously racist, classist and evil all in one anti-individual collectivist package…

Via Breitbart:

Embattled MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has not only gotten in trouble for bragging about helping President Obama put one over on the American people with ObamaCare, he’s also been uncovered as an abortion advocate—but not a run-of-the-mill advocate of “women’s rights.”

No, Gruber’s abortion advocacy is of a particularly pungent eugenics variety. He’s on record repeatedly making the case from social science that abortion is a “social good” because it reduces the number of “marginal children,” by which he means urban poor—those he says can be counted on to commit crimes if they were ever born.

Gruber co-authored a paper during the Clinton years which argued that legal abortion had saved the U.S. taxpayer upwards of $14 billion in welfare benefits and that it also lowered crime.

Read the full story here.





Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Racist Democrats Decry Election of Tim Scott


Last night was a historical night, for several reasons.  One particular event of note is that Tim Scott (R) was re-elected to his Senate seat.  Senator Scott came to the Senate by appointment, but yesterday, he won his election to stay in the Senate.  That is quite an accomplishment, for not only is he the first southern African American to win such a seat since reconstruction (and before the democrats stopped blacks from voting, let alone running for office).  Not only that, he is the first African American to be elected to both the House and Senate.   However, the democrats, the party of slavery, the party of the KKK, and the party of Jim Crow, forgot their filters, and expressed their true opinions of blacks that leave the plantation (runaway slaves, if you will…)

racism 1

Twitchy has a bunch more. 

I would guess that the democrats like blacks only when they stay uneducated, and stay on the democrat plantation.  As LBJ said…

To answer this, I think we again need to go back into history, and see what happened in the 60’s. Let’s start with some quotes attributed to LBJ.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

LBJ, Democratic President of the United States.

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

To those 0f you that are “plugged in” politically, and see things for how they really are, will recognize these as the “common core” of democrat racism and politics for nearly 60 years.  And, when one their slaves runs away, you better believe that they’re going to go after them.





My Exclusive Interview With the Ebola Virus


The face of racism

He’s the world’s hottest celebrity.  He’s in demand across the globe.  His name is on everyone’s lips and he has just arrived in New York City.  Only I have the journalist bona fides to snag an interview. Ladies and gentlemen I now present my exclusive interview with the Ebola virus.

MI: Ebola it’s a pleasure to meet you.

EV: Thank you.  It’s a pleasure to be here.  Let me start out by saying that I have experienced nothing but kindness from New Yorkers since I arrived.  Being a country boy I thought I’d be out of place in the big city but I feel like I’m fitting right in.

MI: New York loves celebrities.  What have you done since you’ve been in the city.

EV: Oh the usual tourist stuff.  Staten Island Ferry, Statue of Liberty, the High Line.

MI:  Um, you’ve been all over the city?

EV:  All over.  Well except for the Bronx.  That place scares me.

MI:  Everywhere?  Aren’t you worried that you might infect people?

EV:  You worry too much.  If I were that infectious don’t you think President Obama or the CDC would have banned flights from infected areas?

MI:  You bring up a good point.  I’m sure the President and the CDC have our best interests at heart.

EV: Besides, search your history.  Since when has a quarantine ever been infected? Search your science.  Diseases are not spread by contact.  They are spread by racism and fear.  Fear of the so-called “other.”

MI: Well actually – 

EV: The science is settled on this.

MI:  But –

EV:  And isn’t your so-called desire to “quarantine” infected areas really a manifestation of your white privilege, ableism and racism?

MI: No, it’s simple common sense.

EV:  You’re a Republican aren’t you?  I can tell.  You hate me because I’m African.

MI: Wait a minute.  There’s no need for name-calling.

EV: I call it as I see it you racist.  Do you know how I came into being?  Because of the institutional racism of the white man I was born.

MI: We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this.

EV: Coward.

MI: Do you have any comment on the protocols being carried out for those infected with you?

EV: Another manifestation of white privilege and racism.  How do you think it makes me feel to see people in hazmat suits?  It stigmatizes me.  No hazmat suits!  I just want to be loved is that so wrong?

MI:  Right. So what’s next for you?

EV:  I’d like to get my own show.  Perhaps on MSNBC.  I’m fascinated by politics and I’m a progressive virus.  I don’t discriminate against blacks or women.  No war on woman here.  Say you don’t look too good.  Are you alright.

MI: I’m fine.  Just a slight fever.  So you’re saying the general public has nothing to fear from you?

EV: No.  We’ve gone beyond the days of quarantining people.  We’ve gone beyond believing in the infectious disease theory.  If people don’t want to get sick from me all they have to do is pay their fair share of taxes.  It’s science and it’s compassionate.

MI: Well that’s about all the time we have.

EV: Is the interview over already?

MI: Yes.  I”m sorry but I think I’m going to throw up.

EV: I hope it’s nothing serious.  Maybe you contracted that enterovirus.  I hear Mexicans caused it.

MI:  I’m out of here.  I have to get to a bathroom quick!

You know maybe the Ebola virus has a point.  We should stop trying to stigmatize those from infected regions.  We should not try to stop flights from coming into this country.  The science is behind this.  And it’s compassionate.  Wow, that diarrhea attack really left me dehydrated.





Michelle Obama Promises Black Voters a Fried Chicken in Every Pot


Please tell me this isn’t degrading, and racist.

First lady Michelle Obama has a message to black voters: Don’t worry about what candidates have done or said — just vote for the Democrats.

On TV One, a network operating under the motto “Where Black Life Unfolds,” the first lady told “News One Daily” host Roland Martin, “And that’s my message to voters, this isn’t about Barack, it’s not about person on that ballot — its about you. And for most of the people we are talking to, a Democratic ticket is the clear ticket that we should be voting on, regardless of who said what or did this — that shouldn’t even come into the equation.”

In the full audio of the interview, Michelle Obama gives everyone who votes permission to eat fried chicken.

Martin asked (at 7:15), “So can we, if we go out to the polls, can we, say, we have a souls to polls on Sunday, can we do soul food after we vote?”

Obama responded, “Absolutely. I give everyone full permission to eat some fried chicken after they vote. Only after, if you haven’t voted… You make a good point. Because I am, I do talk about health. But I think that a good victory for Democrats on Tuesday, you know, should be rewarded with some fried chicken.”

Never mind that black unemployment is higher than the national average.

Never mind that black children are trapped in failing inner city schools.

Just vote for Democrats, then reward yourself with fried chicken. And collard greens. Maybe wash it down with a Colt 45.


And if by some chance you’re a black pastor who dares to wander off the plantation and endorse, gasp!, a Republican? Yeah, you need to die. Because it’s not racism when Michelle Obama uses blatantly racist stereotypes, and it’s not lynching when black Democrats threaten to kill a black man who thinks for himself.

I wonder, does FLOTUS’ dispensation extend to folks in Utah who are voting for Mia Love?




Gun Grabbing Democrat, Jamilah Nasheed, Gets Nabbed with Gun!



In an act of typical democrat hypocrisy, a democrat gun grabber was recently nabbed carrying a gun.  Liberty News has more…

Why did staunch gun control advocate Missouri State Senator Jamilah ‘Switchblade Sista’ Nasheed feel the need to arm her self to participate in a ‘peaceful protest‘???

FERGUSON, Mo. ( – Missouri State Senator Jamilah Nasheed had a gun in her possession at the time she was arrested Monday night outside the Ferguson Police Department, according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson.

Nasheed declined comment about the having the weapon, but did tell News 4 she has a concealed carry permit. A Ferguson police officer said Nasheed was carrying a fully-loaded 9 mm handgun and additional rounds.

Sources also told News 4 Ferguson police requested St. Ann to administer a breathalyzer test at the time of her arrest because she “smelled strongly of intoxicants,” but Nasheed refused to do so. Nasheed said Tuesday she was not intoxicated at the time.

This really goes to the fact that democrats don’t want ot ban guns, they just want to control WHO has guns.  Under democrat gun grabbing laws, only two classes of people have unfettered access to guns; police and criminals.  You, however, the law abiding citizen, have no access.  So, when the democrats and their criminal allies, such as union goons, “social justice advocates” and the like, come to intimidate you, they can rest assured that your ability to effectively defend yourself has been neutralized.   In their eyes, there is not a thing wrong with Jamilah Nasheed carrying a gun.  You owning one however, needs to be stopped!

I covered this in a previous post, The Psychology of Gun Control.


In 1995 Jersey City Mayor’s Chief of Staff said “All White People Have a Little Hitler in Them”


Muhammed Akil
Muhammed Akil

Since he wants to be our next governor, I think it’s only fair to point out that Steven Fulop hires the nicest people.

Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop’s chief of staff gave a speech at a Chicago college nearly 20 years ago in which he “repeatedly” used a homophobic slur, called the Pope the “anti-Christ” and said that “all white people have a little Hitler in them,” according to a contemporaneous newspaper account.

Muhammed Akil, who was about 25 at the time, was speaking at Northwestern University at an African Mind Liberation Conference held by the school’s black student alliance, according to copies of the Daily Northwestern obtained by The Jersey Journal.

A story in the student newspaper of South Illinois University says he gave a similar talk there in 1998.

The initial Daily Northwestern story about Akil’s speech ran on Nov. 14, 1995, under the headline, “FMO speaker decries whites.” FMO refers to For Members Only, the university’s black student alliance.

According to the Daily Northwestern, Akil was speaking on the topic “Decoding White Supremacy: Reading Destructive Images.” He slammed white representations of Jesus, calling them the “fa—t Jesus,” the paper reported. He repeatedly called gay people “fa—ts” and blasted Abraham Lincoln as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” according to the paper.

He also told the crowd that “all white people have a little Hitler in them,” the paper said.

Akil holds a powerful position at City Hall, where all the city’s department heads report to him. He earns $120,544 annually, one of the highest salaries for a civilian city worker.

But of course none of that matters, because Mr. Akil is a Democrat, and Black, and Muslim. Only white guys can be racist; it says so in the textbook for Grievance Mongering 101.

Besides, Mayor Fulop claims Akil has “evolved.” He has gay friends now!

Paula Deen, please call your office.


A Special Message from the Centers for Disease Control


 centers for disease control logo

With the Ebola outbreak in the news we here at the Worldwide Headquarters of Manhattan Infidel™  are taking a moment out of our busy schedule to give our readers the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control on how to protect yourself.

Q:  What is the Ebola virus?

A:  The Ebola virus (or Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever) is a highly contagious and deadly disease.  There is no known cure.

Q:  Where did the Ebola virus originate?

A:  Some say Africa, though of course that is speculation and racist.

Q:  But weren’t the first recorded cases from sub-Saharan Africa?

A:  We are scientists.  We are not interested in your “facts.”

Q:  What causes Ebola?

A:  Intolerance, racism and capitalism.  Countries with low tax rates usually experience outbreaks.

Q:  What are the symptoms of Ebola?

A: Fatigue, headache, joint paint, vomiting and diarrhea are the first outward signs of infection though the underlying cause is most likely resistance to the Prophet Muhammad.

Q:  I hear there is an outbreak in Africa and an African man flew to Dallas and became sick.  Is this true?

A:  It is irrelevant where the sick person came from.  We at the CDC are not interested in that.

Q:  But if he did come from Africa shouldn’t we, as a precaution, ban flights from countries with known infectious outbreaks?

A:  Your question betrays your underlying racism and makes me sick.  Granted, not “Ebola” sick but sick from moral outrage that in the 21st century we still have to put up with people like you.

Q:  It’s not a racist question.  It’s common sense.  Wouldn’t the best way to prevent an outbreak in the United States be to ban flights from countries known to have outbreaks?  We temporarily banned flights to Israel over the summer because of the war and feared for the safety of Americans.  Isn’t it the same principle?

A:  The two cases could not be more different. Israel is an occupying power and we banned flights hoping to inflict economic damage on them that would bring them to enter negotiations with the Palestinians.  Quite frankly I am surprised by the ignorance of your question and have already alerted the IRS to possible irregularities in your tax returns.

Q:  But I just want to protect America!  I think we should stop flights from infected countries in Africa.

A:  Why do you hate black people?

Q:  I believe I might be infected.  What can I do?

A:  Try vomiting all over your home.  Then go outside and vomit on your front lawn. Make sure that your neighbors see you vomiting so that they will come to your assistance.

Q:  But won’t that infect my neighbors?

A:  Not if they are progressive and favor higher taxes and redistribution of wealth.

Q:  What about washing my hands?

A:  Yeah right.  Since when has washing ones hands ever kept anyone healthy? Besides, washing ones hands is racist.

Q:  I just vomited all over my home and front lawn.  Teams in HazMat suits have ordered me back inside. Shouldn’t I be taken to a hospital?  

A:  What? And infect hospital workers?  No. The safest thing for you to do is to go back inside. If you have any meat in your refrigerator use the meat to clean up the vomit.  This will disinfect your home.  It also means the meat is safe to eat.

Q:  Really?

A:  I think so.  We are kind of new to this whole infectious outbreak thing.  But this advice comes from Jenny McCarthy so we know it’s reliable.

Q:  So I have nothing to fear?  Ebola has no chance of coming to the United States?

A:  None whatsoever.  Unless an infected man flies to this country or crosses our borders.  But what are the chances of that happening?.

Q:  Thank you for your help and information.  I feel better already.

A:  Don’t mention it.  We at the CDC exist to fight the spread of such infectious diseases such as Ebola and we urge all Americans to vote Democrat.  Only through higher taxes can we prevent an outbreak.

Well I for one feel much safer knowing the Government is on the case.


President Obama Apologizes For America To The United Nations


President Obama at United Nations
Forgive me if my rantings get a little out of hand this morning. I really do not intend to continually bash President Obama, day after day after day, but some things need to be mentioned. They bear harping on because they are so completely ludicrous and outrageous.

President Obama started off his first term in office by traveling the world and apologizing for the wrongs of America. Do we have our problems? Most certainly, we do. But unlike any President before him, he had no problem going to foreign soil and bashing America. He apologized for what he considered to be our failings and he did so incessantly. It was enough to drive any decently patriotic American to grinding their teeth. That was about six years ago and he hasn’t stopped.

President Obama made a grand speech to the United Nations on Wednesday. It was filled with glowing words flowing from his teleprompter that told how America would always defend her interests and stand up for what is right in the world. Etc, etc. If you’ve heard one of his speeches, you heard them all. There was, however, something else included. Something that should have been left alone until the facts from the investigation are released.

Daily Surge – “I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times, we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true,” the president said. “In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.”

Okay, so everyone in the world knows about what took place in Ferguson, MO this summer. Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson. Racial tensions mounted, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder arrived in town, and unruly and violent protestors ruled the day. Except for one small detail. The investigation into what really took place between Officer Wilson and Michael Brown is not finished. Wilson has not been charged or arrested. The officials are still trying to determine what actually took place and if Officer Wilson was at fault for shooting Michael Brown.

You would think that would be a red flag to President Obama. Why not wait until the facts are known, before he goes off on a tangent and opens a wound that needs to be healed, rather than ripped apart? Because, my friends, that’s just not how he rolls. He and his minions didn’t like what happened in Ferguson. A black teenager was killed by a white police officer. Never mind the facts, that’s all they needed to know. Let the racism begin and the apologies roll forth.

We learned yesterday that Eric Holder would be resigning his position as Attorney General of the United States, effective as soon as his replacement is named. I’m glad he is going, but with one small caveat. I just wish he could take his boss and the Vice President with him so we could elect a President that will not be so determined to apologize for the country he is supposed to be leading.


UPDATE: Black Oakland Firefighter Accuses White Cop of Racism: Cop’s Body Camera Proves Claim False


 photo blackoaklandcopcaughtinlieaboutwhitepoliceracism_zps3c3198b6.jpg


Hat/Tip to Henry K. Lee at SFGate.

The Oakland Police Department has released a second body cam video related to the incident involving Oakland Firefighter, Keith Jones who claimed that the Oakland Police treated him unfavorably due to racism.

The black fireman was walking home from an Oakland Raiders game with his two sons when he noticed that the door to the fire station was wide open. He and his sons were checking the fire station out when Oakland Police responded to the scene. Jones made accusations that the responding officer acted in a manner that scared his children and made him think the officer was going to shoot him. Jones said that the white officer acted this way because he, (Jones) and his kids were black.

The incident happened at 10:45 p.m. Aug. 15 as Jones and his sons, ages 9 and 12, returned from a Raiders game at the Coliseum. While driving past Station 29 at 1016 66th Ave. in East Oakland, Jones, who is based at another station, noticed the garage doors were open and decided to close them.

Here is the body cam video of another officer responding to the scene:



This second video clearly debunks Jones’ claims of racially insensitive treatment by the Oakland Police Officer.

The officer, who was not identified by police officials, can be heard on the video apologizing to Jones and his children.

“I’m sorry for the scare,” the officer said.

“No problem,” Jones replied.

In the video, Jones can be heard telling the officer, “I respect what you’re doing” and, “It’s not a problem.”

In a statement Wednesday, Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent said, “The video footage allows the community to see the events as they occurred. The officers clearly acted within policy. We continue to be committed to transparency.”


Hat/Tip to Jason DeWitt at Top Right News.

With the shootings in Ferguson, MO and Sanford, FL, racial tensions are elevated, particularly when an incident involves a black subject and a white police officer. Recently in Oakland, CA a black firefighter was walking home with his two sons after an Oakland Raiders game. They walked past the fire station where he worked and noticed an open door.

While he was investigating it, police arrived due to a previous call about a break in at that fire station. What transpires next is a classic case of someone getting their hand caught in the cookie jar. No, the fireman wasn’t robbing his place of work, but he got caught lying about the treatment he received from the officer on the scene.

Accusing someone of racism is a serious matter. Unfortunately, when the charge is Black against White, particularly with a cop, the media typically believes the charge regardless of any lack of evidence.

It is rare for that false claim to be busted wide open. But that happened in Oakland, California, with a Black firefighter caught in a series of “racism” lies against a White officer.

Keith Jones and his sons were walking back to their vehicle after a Raiders game when he noticed that the garage door to the fire station he works at had been left open. Mr. Jones entered the building to make sure it was secure and was exiting the open door when a police officer, who was already responding to a call about a possible burglary at that location, pulled up and told Jones and his boys to put their hands up.

It is at this point where the story gets interesting.

According to Jones, the officer had his hand on his gun and was in a shooting stance. Jones said he tried to let the officer see his ID, but the officer refused to let him. He said his boys were terrified that the belligerent officer would shoot their father.

The incident ended without arrest.

But then Jones went on the news to proclaim himself a victim of a racist cop who “views black males as a threat.”

He also filed a complaint against the officer, who he said “never apologized” for stopping him.

Of course, the media lapped this juicy story up.



Lucky for the police officer, he was wearing a body camera that recorded the entire incident. And guess what? The camera shows that what really happened and what was reported to have happened, were two very different things.



Now, as said above, the firefighter claims the officer took a “shooting stance,” and wouldn’t look at the man’s ID, which showed he was a firefighter.

Threatening and belligerent? Nope. Refused to let Jones show his ID? Nope, in fact he asked to see it almost right away. And he certainly did apologize — THREE TIMES — despite going by the book throughout the stop and communicating with his precinct about everything he did.

Now, the same Jones who brazenly accused an innocent cop of racism is suddenly camera shy. He refused to appear on camera for that same news reporter, referring him to his attorney.

It is incidents like this that help drive the meme that all cops are racists, over-bearing, power-mad jerks. I can only imagine how happy the policeman in this story is to have had a body cam on him at the time.

Body and Dash Cams ought to be standard equipment for all law enforcement officers. They would not only serve to protect the civilians, but, as in this case, protect the officers, as well.




Maxine Waters – Sharia Law Is Compatible With The Constitution


As most of you know, I have a problem with Islam. To be bluntly honest, I don’t trust Islam to not turn radical in its intentions and desires. Time after time, it has been proven it can not be trusted. Even though we are told over and over again that it is merely a religion, just like any other religion, anyone with an eye that will look honestly at the facts can look and see Islam is unlike any other religion. So much so that I wonder if it can really be considered a religion. It is more of a political system than anything else. A political system that roots out and destroys anything and anyone standing in its path. It does have its defenders, as can be seen by reading the comments on my previous post about John Bennett. Some of those defenders hold offices in high places, such as Congresswoman Maxine Waters. It was also evident when Oklahoma voters passed a State Question, amending the state Constitution to prevent Oklahoma judges from considering Sharia Law in their deliberations in any case. CAIR blew a gasket on that one and managed to find a judge to overturn the will of the people of Oklahoma.

I normally would not quote an entire post from another blogger, but Sara Nobel from Independent Sentinel has done an excellent job of pointing out exactly how Maxine Waters, and anyone else who tries to explain how compatible Sharia Law is with the United States Constitution, is completely missing the mark. It deserves to be read in its entirety. I am relatively sure the defenders of Islam and Sharia Law will be out in full force, but so be it. Hat tip to Doug Ross.
Maxin Waters

Sara Nobel – Maxine Waters is under the impression that Shariah Law can be implemented while our U.S. Constitution is in effect. Anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe and a hater according to her. Democrats like Maxine have been pushing that message for years and it’s taken hold.

In 2012 [correction], the Council of Pakistan Affairs and Islamic Society of Orange County welcomed Maxine Waters to a meeting along with other extremists in Congress like Congresswomen Chu and Sanchez, the California Comptroller et al where she made her comments. They would have been controversial ten years ago but in this PC age, the Constitution is controversial.Congresswoman Waters accused Republicans of attacking the Islamic faith as a national security threat.

That’s patently untrue. It is not Islamic faith Republicans have a problem with, it is radical Islam but she conveniently left that out.

She said that fear tactics accusing Muslims of trying to spread tenets of Shariah into our government has spurred legislation to ban Shariah.

She attacked Rep. Peter King and other Republicans for his hearings on RADICAL Islam. His hearings concerned radical groups like al-Shabob but Maxine claimed it was Islam.

She said she is pushing legislation to ban any racial profiling.

If the people who are trying to kill you are radical Muslims, should you go into senior citizen complexes or Knights of Columbus halls looking for possible terrorists? Maxine’s view of racial profiling is extreme.

Maxine sees the American Constitution and Shariah as nonconflicting. However, having two sets of laws – Shariah and the U.S. justice system – is in of itself a conflict.

Maxine minimized the threat of radical Islam and said the Muslim community is actively working with law enforcement.

The biggest problem with her speech is she thinks Shariah law is consistent with the U.S. constitution. She equates any anti-Shariah law as hate.

At the end of the video, she quoted Daniel Mach of the ACLU (an organization filled with communists and anti-Christian activists) as saying Shariah equals Islam and Muslims and a vote against one is a vote against another. Mach also said that anti-Sharia laws are “motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, plain and simple.”

In other words, don’t offer any dissent or try to keep our rule of law in tact or you are a bigot.

It’s easy to dismiss anything related to Muslims as bigotry but when they insist, for example, that our free speech laws be amended, they give lie to their protestations that Shariah is congruent with the U.S. Constitution.

Huffington Post and other liberal media outlets insist that Shariah does comply with the American constitution.

According to HuffPo, Shariah does not promote any specific form of government; Muslims don’t want to rule America; the Qur’an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews; Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack; and the most “Muslim country” in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought–all hallmarks of Shariah Law.

Experience might tell us something different.

While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam’s Shariah law is the most intrusive and the strictest, especially against women.

Their definition of free speech includes strict requirements about not offending others.

Shariah does not accept separation of church and state.

Shariah Law controls, rules and regulates all public and private behavior. It has regulations for personal hygiene, diet, sexual conduct, and elements of child rearing. It also prescribes specific rules for prayers, fasting, giving to the poor, and many other religious matters. Civil Law and Common Law primarily focus on public behavior, but both also regulate some private matters.

Shariah Law can be used in larger situations than guiding an individual’s behavior. It can be used as a guide for how an individual acts in society and how one group interacts with another. The Shariah Law can be used to settle border disputes between nations or within nations. It can be used to settle international disputes, conflicts and wars. This Law does not exclude any knowledge from other sources and is viewed by the Muslim world as a vehicle to solve all problems civil, criminal and international.

While Shariah only applies to Muslims, how does the United States allow it alongside our own laws and maintain our integrity as a nation?

The United States has a law and it’s called the Constitution. We do have separation of church and state. Another irresolvable conflict.

Shariah Law has several sources from which to draw its guiding principles. It does not rely upon one source for its broad knowledge base. The first and primary element of Sharia Law is the Quran.

If Shariah runs as an alternate system of justice, it would be regarded by most as an infiltration of Islam into our system of justice.

Shariah affects estates, banking, punishments for crimes and so on. Conflicts with our constitution could arise over issues that are considered crimes under Shariah such as Apostasy from Islam, adultery, fornication, defamation (they do not have freedom of speech as we know it), false accusation, drinking of alcohol, et al.

We need to have an honest and open discussion, without emotion, about this issue but people and groups like Maxine Waters, the Islamic Society and the ACLU won’t let us. They silence us with their accusations of racism and hate.

They’re trying to sell the American public on the idea that Shariah Law is congruent with our Constitution. It clearly is not.

Liberals will tell you it is no different than orthodox Jews following Rabbinical Law. These are the same people who go postal if a cross is on display in a public square or if God is mentioned in a school.

That is something we should discuss, but then we would be racists.


#Ferguson: Has Obama Made it Worse?


 photo ferguson_zps5c4d9f9b.jpg
I have yet to write about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, for one simple reason. I have not felt like wading into the mud that seems to be getting thicker every day. Even with Missouri National Guard now helping the Missouri Highway Patrol police the area, Monday night was still dangerous on the streets in Ferguson. Dozens were arrested and two people were shot by the protestors. We do not know how this is going to end up, but I believe I can safely say, it will not be good.

Simply put, the situation in Ferguson is a total mess. There is no real reason for it, even if it comes out that the officer had no real reason to shoot Michael Brown. That’s what we have laws for. Do we still claim to be a nation of laws? If so, then why is it so difficult for these people to let those laws do the job for which they were intended. Instead, they automatically jump to conclusions and start rioting and looting.

One question I have is this. How would this situation unfolded before Obama and Holder were in power? I think it would have been different because the people who perpetrate such nonsense have been emboldened because they have “two of their own” in places of authority. That may sound like racism, but it is nothing of the kind. Stop and think for a moment. It is true that some racial tension may always be present in America. I could write countless paragraphs about that tension and the reasons for it. Some are legitimate, but some are just excuses. In spite of what so many black people seem to believe, white Americans are not always on the lookout for a black person to shoot, rob, pillage, or otherwise do wrong to. If anything, it is the other way around. Yes, racial tension may always be with us, but the person who is supposed to be President of all the people in the United States has made it very clear where he stands.

Throughout his entire administration, President Obama has made racial tensions worse than they were before he took office. It is possible it started with the Harvard professor getting arrested for breaking into his own house. Instead of complying with the police and then letting them know the facts, Henry Louis Gates resisted the police. President Obama waded into a local issue by saying the police acted stupidly, without even knowing what happened. If anyone acted stupidly, it was Gates and Mr. Obama.

The same thing happened with the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman affair. The President went on national television and said if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon. He publicly decried Zimmerman’s acquittal, making things worse by inserting himself into a local issue, before he had all the facts. That tells me he really doesn’t care about the facts. All he is interested in is advancing his agenda and the narrative of a little black boy being murdered by a white man (never mind that George Zimmerman isn’t white), fit the bill nicely.

Make no mistake, I am not blaming President Obama for what happened to Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown. However, I do think he bears some responsibility for what happened afterwards. Along with Jessee Jackson (I refuse to call him Reverend) and Al Sharpton, Obama has stirred up racial tensions and the strife between whites and blacks. In reality, I have yet to see that strife exemplified by whites. It is always the black community that seems so ready and willing to burn the house down because of some perceived wrongdoing. Here is what Obama had to say yesterday about what is happening in Ferguson.

Politico – “While I understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of Michael Brown, giving into that anger by looting or carrying guns, and even attacking the police, only serves to raise tensions and stir chaos, it undermines, rather than advancing justice,” Obama said a press conference Monday afternoon.

Obama, however, added that constitutional rights to speak freely, assemble and those of the press must be “vigilantly safeguarded … especially in moments like these” adding that “there’s no excuse for excessive force by police.”

Of the situation, Obama said Ferguson is “rightly hurting,” but called once again for people to “seek some understanding rather than to simply holler at each other.”

“Let’s seek to heal, rather than to wound each other,” the president said.

It appears to me the President is full of empty rhetoric and little else. We do not have all the facts concerning the shooting of Michael Brown and until we do, we should withhold judgement on what took place. As I mentioned in my comment on Mike’s post about Ferguson, it is a travesty that the law was not given a chance to work as it is designed in Ferguson. Conclusions were jumped to and the rioting and looting began. The shooting of Michael Brown was the excuse that allowed these people to do what they wanted to do. Couple that with the race baiters in chief, namely President Obama, Eric Holder, Jessee Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and what you see is total chaos. All of this, before the truth is even known about what really happened between Michael Brown and the police officer in question.

We do not know, as of yet, if Officer Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown. The evidence seems to suggest he was, and that the teenager was not the gentle giant he has been portrayed to be, but that narrative is being rejected by the blacks on the ground, as well as white liberals, because it would mean the rioting and looting that has gone on has been completely unjustified. Actually, no matter how the evidence points, the rioting and looting is not warranted. But it would mean that even the protests were just the excuse to go on a rampage. That, my friends, is a sad commentary about what has taken place in Ferguson, MO in the past several days. A sad commentary, indeed.


Race Baiting Democrat Gets Schooled by Republican Armed with Facts

Pam Stevens Schools Brett Hulsey

Hat/Tip to the Tea Party News Network.

  • It doesn’t matter that the Democratic Party was the Party that wanted to keep slavery.
  • It doesn’t matter that the Democratic Party was the Party that gave us the Jim Crowe laws.
  • It doesn’t matter that the Democratic Party gave us the KKK.
  • It doesn’t matter that the Democratic Party was the Party that was against the Civil Rights movement of the ’60s.

None of that matters to most Democrats today, in fact they don’t just deny it, they try and project that history onto the Republican Party.

That’s what Brett Hulsey tries to do outside of the Republican Party’s Convention in Wisconsin. He’s a Democratic candidate for Governor, trying to unseat Governor Scott Walker and he thought that dressing up in a shabby, and pretty awful homemade confederate uniform while parading up and down the sidewalk was a good idea.

Yep, that’s real governor material there. (/sarcasm off)

Hulsey made news a few weeks ago when he announced his plan to hand out KKK hoods to Republicans as they attended the GOP convention in Wisconsin. In the end, he changed his plan and showed up at the convention wearing a ridiculous and historically inaccurate confederate uniform holding a sign attempting to ridicule and harass Republicans. 

His plan to garner attention ended up getting not quite the attention he was seeking. GOP delegate Pam Stevens, a black conservative who also ran for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2012, confronted Hulsey explaining to him how she took great offense to his little stunt. She also schooled him on how the claims he was making about Republicans actually is the history of the Democrat party.

She really took him to the woodshed, and the video shows how condescending he was to her.

Hulsey just couldn’t help himself with his condescending attitude to cover up his discomfort as he was simply getting owned. At about the 1:35 mark, listen for him as he asks Stevens “You know about driving while black, don’t you.” 

Stevens does not let that stop her and, in the end, Hulsey ‘had to go talk to one of his colleagues’.  In other words, he was getting schooled in the most embarrassing of ways and being made a fool of. So, he had to get away.

Watch the video and be prepared to almost be embarrassed for the fool, Hulsey.

Evidently he’s not too proud of this video…

To date, Hulsey has not posted a video of his ignorant laced stunt on his Brett Hulsey – Politician Facebook page, which remains virtually unknown.

How unknown?

Furry Fandom – a page for people interested in fictional anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics has more “likes” than Hulsey’s page.

I secretly want to punch slow walking people in the back of their heads! – this rather self-explanatory page is “liked” more than Hulsey’s page.

Because of Edward Cullen, Human Boys Have Lost Their Charm – this group has more members than Hulsey’s page has “likes.”

Fans of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – this page has over two hundred thousand members, way more than guess-who’s page…

But never fear, I posted this video on his “official Facebook” page and it got a big response. As of the time of this posting, nobody that commented on the video came to his defense.




The Real History of the Word “Redskin” It’s Not What You Think

redskins 001
The word “redskin” was coined by Native Americans.

Hat/Tip to The Slate.

s-obama-football-largePresident Obama recently said this about the Washington Redskins football team, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that the name of my team, even if they’ve had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”

As with most issues, this President spouts off about things he doesn’t fully understand.


The left cries that it is offensive. They shout “racism” and demand “justice!”

The only problem is, the term “redskin” is anything but racist or injust. Does that stop the PC left, or even slow them down?

Nope, but why let pesky facts get in the way of their crusade?

To be sure, some vague notion of the “history” of the term has been invoked countless times to prove that redskin is currently offensive. On Fox News in October, columnist Kirsten Powers discussed what she believed to be an open disagreement about the etymology of the word and argued (somewhat illogically) that if only people better understood the history they would see why the word is offensive:

There’s a lot of disagreement even over what Redskins mean. Some people say it’s a European term that referred to the fact that Indians there painted their faces red. Other people say, no, it refers to American Indians being scalped, two very different things, I think. But if you look in the dictionary, in pretty much every dictionary it’s referred to as an offensive term. That would give me pause if I ever happened to own a football [team] to have that name. And I think it is offensive. The fact that a lot of people don’t find it offensive probably has to do with the fact that they probably don’t know exactly what it means.

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, too, has weighed in on the connection between redskin’s power to offend and its origins when he compared it to the derogatory verb gyp:

When I was growing up, I thought ‘gyp’ was simply a synonym for ‘cheat,’ and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

So, if only you knew the story behind redskin you would find it offensive, right? Well, not exactly.

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin’s early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word’s first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that “the actual origin of the word is entirely benign.”

Redskin, he learned,had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.


Read the full story here.